My only problem with the idea is that Apple are patenting it. Seriously now, fuel cell batteries have been proposed before, and Apple are trying to reserve them for only their own use (in computers), in order to sue anyone else who makes one.
Their patent covers the whole package - the cell itself (when used in a computer or mobile), the charger, the charge regulator, everything. Anyone who wants to avoid being sued (Apple don't like licensing out their patents) will have to come up with some really esoteric ways to provide the whole thing to get away with it. Or alternatively just use a nuclear battery and be done with it.
You remember when patents were used to advance technology, instead of corporate profits. Those were the days.
No. I don't think they're even used to advance corporate profits now (with the exception of legal corporations of course).
Then how do you explain the current state of the consumer tech market? Every one is suing everyone else and if they don't have anyone to sue, they'll buy a company who does have a reason to sue just so they can sue on their behalf. It's nuts.
Because they all employ lawyers, and listen to them. In a way it's a similar argument to gun ownership. The big, rich companies have a huge portfolio of patents and the only way for other companies to defend themselves is to also have huge portfolio of patents. Since under the US system patents can only be considered valid if they're actively defended, they have to try and sue people in order not to lose their defenses against other patent giants. Apple may have taken on a bit more than they intended though, since their attempt to sue Nokia caused something of a backlash (Nokia owns a huge range of essential mobile patents - actual technical ones rather than rounded corners and icons with shadows, and has licensing partnerships with just about every other mobile manufacturer). If you were to replace patents with nuclear bombs, you'd see why Mutually Assured Destruction is such an insane idea.
Another more important problem with the idea is Apple batteries tend to fizzle, smoke and then explode in searing firey flesh melting pain in your pocket. Do we really want to add fuel to the fire?
The problem with that is Apple aren't the first to build a fuel cell for mobile devices. There were quite a few being shown off at tech shows a few years back. So there's more than one way to do it and there's prior art.
Yes. I'm a big fan of promoting natural selection. Those willing to die for fashion, should. Won't make a difference, never has before. Come on now - rounded corners on a tablet device? They still managed to patent that - and get the Samsung banned in two countries (temporarily) as a result.
For a little perspective on the matter: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/index.jsp Just because someone files for something, it doesn't mean it's a done deal. I doubt they'd secure anything that'd line up with their intentions. Reverse engineering is huge, and this will probably become yet another case of someone who ends up slamming their hands on a courtroom table and proclaiming "It's not fair!!!" when their innovation encourages further innovation. :hat:
While the USPTO sucks it does occasionally do it's job. Microsoft were knocked back recently for some of their patents. If Apple's argument with Samsung were about rounded corners alone they'd have been thrown our of court. Of course that little dispute is beginning to bite Apple as other tech companies who are now being targted by a troll Apple armed with patents are looking into their own patent war chests. Some like Samsung are even threatening the whole concept of open standards because of Apple's aggression. I have no doubt this is all going to end badly and every body will lose.
